and oops

I think that it is worth pointing out that amphibians have genes for both gills and lungs. Gills in the juvenile stage and lungs in the adult stage. They lay their eggs in fresh water where the juveniles hatch and swim around using gills, fins, and tails like fish, but later lose their tails, gills, and fins and grow legs, arms and, lungs, and a lot of them spend a lot of time out of the water.

Some amphibians even retain their gills into the adult stage after growing arms and legs.

Evolution in action right before your eyes? I think so!

Angler fish don't use their fins to swim around much either they use their fins to move around on the bottom and jump on prey. I wonder where that instinct came from?

hackenslash wrote:

Shrunk wrote:They'd have to be either stupid, ignorant or dishonest to make such a claim.

False trichotomy; they could easily be all three, and in fact often are, as the evidence demonstrates only too readily.

Darn. Beat me to it, sort of. I was going to say creationism allows - or, perhaps, encourages - a person to be all three.

Shrunk wrote:

talkietoaster wrote:

Shrunk wrote:The legs "came from" fins. That is trivially obvious.

There is no differentiation between the "instinct" required to flop your fins around to move thru the water, and to flop a slightly more robust form of those fins around to move on the ground in shallow water.

I thought elephant seals are a good example of using fins to move on land. Unless my ignorance has choosen the wrong sort of fin to demonstrate that movement?

I would think they evolved secondarily from land dwellers, so the question is a bit different.

So seals are doing the reverse, land to water instead of water to land?

talkietoaster wrote: So seals are doing the reverse, land to water instead of water to land?

Yes. They're mammals, so share common ancestry with all other mammals.

asyncritus wrote:

1 The sheer Brilliance of the designs we see all around us in the natural world

2 The necessity of Creation rather than evolution.

Hence, Brilliant Creation.

I shall bring up more evidence of this as time goes on.

1. Baseless assertion based on an argument from ignorance.
2. Baseless projection.

Oldskeptic wrote:I think that it is worth pointing out that amphibians have genes for both gills and lungs. Gills in the juvenile stage and lungs in the adult stage. They lay their eggs in fresh water where the juveniles hatch and swim around using gills, fins, and tails like fish, but later lose their tails, gills, and fins and grow legs, arms and, lungs, and a lot of them spend a lot of time out of the water.

Some amphibians even retain their gills into the adult stage after growing arms and legs.

Evolution in action right before your eyes? I think so!

I don't know who posted these pics of mudskippers, but you clearly have no idea of the biology of these fish, or of their ancestry, or you wouldn't even think that they are some kind of 'transitionals' between fish and tetrapods.

For a start, they don't have legs or lungs.

They breathe through their skin - and if you can believe that skin is a prototype lung then you're in a pretty bad way.

Second, have you ever looked at the anatomy of a fin as compared to a tetrapod forelimb? I doubt it somehow, or you wouldn't be putting up this tripe. I could use stronger (or worse) language, but you get the general idea, I'm sure.

So here are a couple of nice pictures for you to ruminate upon, and puke:



Here's a coelacanth pectoral fin:



And here are some tetrapod forelimbs:



Haven't you got to be on mushrooms to say they're connected?

But you have avoided the question that's at the root both of your troubles and your willingness to post this tripe.

That question is:

Granted that a fish of some sort moved on to land and became an amphibian or a reptile of some kind,
where did it get the powering instincts to enable it to a.walk and b.breathe with lungs?

Never mind the question where did the lungs come from, and why. That's too tough for an evolutionist fairy-tale spinner. Answer those 2 questions above, and I'll recommend you for a Nobel.

PS BTW, have you ever noticed that the pelvic fins of fishes are almost invariably SMALLER (or maybe just the same size) than the pectorals?

And have you noticed that the hind limbs of tetrapods are invariably LARGER than their forelimbs? (think of a kangaroo, for instance as an extreme example). Now how did that happen?

Oldskeptic wrote:

Angler fish don't use their fins to swim around much either they use their fins to move around on the bottom and jump on prey. I wonder where that instinct came from?

I'm sure you know the answer deep down. There isn't another really, you know.

But did you ever wonder how the fish thought up the fish rod and light-bait idea?

Just think how many of their ancestors must have starved before they suddenly had the 'bright' idea in the deep, dark ocean!

But that's a minor problem for the old suspects: 'mutations and natural selection', don't you think?

After all, if M and NS can produce a fish that has lungs and goes to live on land, and walk, then what's a fish rod and light lure for them to figure out? Not much, really.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

asyncritus wrote:

1 The sheer Brilliance of the designs we see all around us in the natural world

2 The necessity of Creation rather than evolution.

Hence, Brilliant Creation.

I shall bring up more evidence of this as time goes on.

1. Baseless assertion based on an argument from ignorance.
2. Baseless projection.

Do you know any Biology really?

You mean, you can't see brilliance in the natural world?

Take the human brain as an example. Do you have any idea just how fantastic an organ it is? And you wouldn't say that an organ like this, which we're just beginning to be able to copy with the scintillating computer technology that's being produced and developed daily, is a brilliant, brilliant piece of work?

But then, I suppose you're the sort that would come across a watch in the grass in somebody's garden and look at it carefully, see the wheels, battery, quartz crystal if any, printed circuits, computer chip and all the other things that make it work perfectly well, and say 'it just happened'.

Aren't you?

Tut tut man.

Fenrir wrote:

Those legs couldn't possibly be used to move on land because lungs

Inanity is inane.

I can't imagine how a fish might develop a lure on the end of a rod, therefore god

Incredulity is incredulous

asyncritus wrote:But then, I suppose you're the sort that would come across a watch in the grass in somebody's garden and look at it carefully, see the wheels, battery, quartz crystal if any, printed circuits, computer chip and all the other things that make it work perfectly well, and say 'it just happened'.

So you agree then that the watch is designed, while the grass isn't.

LucidFlight wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

Shrunk wrote:They'd have to be either stupid, ignorant or dishonest to make such a claim.

False trichotomy; they could easily be all three, and in fact often are, as the evidence demonstrates only too readily.

Darn. Beat me to it, sort of. I was going to say creationism allows - or, perhaps, encourages - a person to be all three.

Oh, I don't know.

Evolution is such a mish mash of tripe, nonsense and just-so stories it's hard to tell where it all comes from. Evolution is the creation myth of our time.

It has never been observed, can never be observed, and yet is believed ardently by the people on this forum and elsewhere. And you say creationists have blind faith!

Dawkins spins his fairy tales (as in Watchmaker) is believed by the sycophants of evolution, and sells thousands of books. He's on to a good thing, and he knows it. I never cease to be amazed at the gullibility of people.

Let me mention another of these brilliant creations, and you can collectively gainsay the evidence - which Dawkins accepts in Watchmaker, by the way. He tries very hard, but in vain, to explain away the phenomenon.

It's to do with the bats.

Bats are mammals that fly. That alone makes them unique - and the word 'unique' is a very bad word in evolutionary circles. Why? Because it is a total denial of any idea of common ancestry.

The microchiropterans use a system of extremely advanced echo-location: so advanced in fact that they can catch about 5 insects in flight in one minute. So advanced that the US military is even now trying to copy it with indifferent success. That simply screams 'Design, Design, Design'. Not, mutations and natural selection,mutations and natural selection, mutations and natural selection.

Bats don't fly with wings of the sort all birds (except the humming birds) use: formed from the whole forelimb. They fly with their hands believe it or not. At this point, if I were an evolutionist, I think I'd be face first in my cornflakes.

They fly so fast ( up to 234432 times their body length) that in terms of body length, not even the fastest fighter plane extant can keep up with them.

How could these creatures have evolved? And from what? The earliest bat fossils have the echo-locating system, and as is to be expected on the Creation model, they appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no known ancestors.

Yet Dawkins proceeds to produce his con trick: and incredibly, many believe what he ludicrously says about the origin of the bats.

'Stupid, ignorant or dishonest' are the words used above. Who do you think that applies to?

Pulsar wrote:

asyncritus wrote:But then, I suppose you're the sort that would come across a watch in the grass in somebody's garden and look at it carefully, see the wheels, battery, quartz crystal if any, printed circuits, computer chip and all the other things that make it work perfectly well, and say 'it just happened'.

So you agree then that the watch is designed, while the grass isn't.

Hardly.

The grass is infinitely more complex than the watch, and speaks even more loudly of design and creation.

asyncritus wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:I think that it is worth pointing out that amphibians have genes for both gills and lungs. Gills in the juvenile stage and lungs in the adult stage. They lay their eggs in fresh water where the juveniles hatch and swim around using gills, fins, and tails like fish, but later lose their tails, gills, and fins and grow legs, arms and, lungs, and a lot of them spend a lot of time out of the water.

Some amphibians even retain their gills into the adult stage after growing arms and legs.

Evolution in action right before your eyes? I think so!

I don't know who posted these pics of mudskippers, but you clearly have no idea of the biology of these fish, or of their ancestry, or you wouldn't even think that they are some kind of 'transitionals' between fish and tetrapods.

For a start, they don't have legs or lungs.

They breathe through their skin - and if you can believe that skin is a prototype lung then you're in a pretty bad way.

Second, have you ever looked at the anatomy of a fin as compared to a tetrapod forelimb? I doubt it somehow, or you wouldn't be putting up this tripe. I could use stronger (or worse) language, but you get the general idea, I'm sure.

So here are a couple of nice pictures for you to ruminate upon, and puke:



Here's a coelacanth pectoral fin:



And here are some tetrapod forelimbs:



Haven't you got to be on mushrooms to say they're connected?

But you have avoided the question that's at the root both of your troubles and your willingness to post this tripe.

That question is:

Granted that a fish of some sort moved on to land and became an amphibian or a reptile of some kind,
where did it get the powering instincts to enable it to a.walk and b.breathe with lungs?

Never mind the question where did the lungs come from, and why. That's too tough for an evolutionist fairy-tale spinner. Answer those 2 questions above, and I'll recommend you for a Nobel.

PS BTW, have you ever noticed that the pelvic fins of fishes are almost invariably SMALLER (or maybe just the same size) than the pectorals?

And have you noticed that the hind limbs of tetrapods are invariably LARGER than their forelimbs? (think of a kangaroo, for instance as an extreme example). Now how did that happen?

PS BTW YADA YADA YADA...

Did you even bother to read the fucking posts concerned, or did you simply look at the pretty fucking pictures? You certainly haven't understood the points raised. Either that or you're simply lying for you magic man. Isn't there something in your cosmic cockfuck's laws about bearing false witness?

asyncritus wrote:Dawkins spins his fairy tales (as in Watchmaker) is believed by the sycophants of evolution, and sells thousands of books. He's on to a good thing, and he knows it. I never cease to be amazed at the gullibility of people.

So you haven't actually read the fucking book?

Nowt new there then.

asyncritus wrote:

Pulsar wrote:

asyncritus wrote:But then, I suppose you're the sort that would come across a watch in the grass in somebody's garden and look at it carefully, see the wheels, battery, quartz crystal if any, printed circuits, computer chip and all the other things that make it work perfectly well, and say 'it just happened'.

So you agree then that the watch is designed, while the grass isn't.

Hardly.

The grass is infinitely more complex than the watch, and speaks even more loudly of design and creation.

Then how would you distinguish design?

Hoisted on your own fucking petard. A familiar part of the aetiology of fuckwittery.

asyncritus wrote:

Pulsar wrote:

asyncritus wrote:But then, I suppose you're the sort that would come across a watch in the grass in somebody's garden and look at it carefully, see the wheels, battery, quartz crystal if any, printed circuits, computer chip and all the other things that make it work perfectly well, and say 'it just happened'.

So you agree then that the watch is designed, while the grass isn't.

Hardly.

The grass is infinitely more complex than the watch, and speaks even more loudly of design and creation.

And yet you focussed your attention on the watch, instead of the grass.

EDIT

hackenslash wrote:Then how would you distinguish design?

indeed.